Punishment in practice

Ethical breaches committed by professionals are an important problem, both within the professions and for society as a whole. In this study, I examined breaches committed in one of the oldest and most-regulated professions, law, across three states. Using a sample of 377 actual disciplinary cases, I quantitatively evaluated the breaches and the punishments assessed to determine if justice is being applied proportionally and consistently. This study showed several potential disconnects between how decision-makers say they will punish, and how they actually punish. Punishment theory states that punishments should be applied in accordance with the blameworthiness of the offense and offender. I identified the factors in these cases that should correspond to blameworthiness, and found that some of the theorized factors (such as target and intentionality) did not matter in determining punishment. The study showed that neither prior good acts nor prior discipline mattered for punishment. It also showed that an offender’s noncooperation with his or her own investigation may be one of the most important factors in determining punishment, which raises questions of justice. Additionally, my study shows that impaired professionals who commit ethical breaches may be treated differently than unimpaired professionals. While mental impairment or any kind of substance abuse ought to be mitigating factors, only professionals with alcohol problems were treated more leniently. Textual analysis revealed that decision-makers used a significantly more passive tone when dealing with alcohol-impaired offenders.